|
Post by stephen on Jul 19, 2023 15:29:07 GMT
the marketing that gosling has been doing for this movie has been perfect lmao What really helps his case is that with the strike having just begun, he's already pretty much done all the promotion needed for his campaign. Other contenders later on in the year could really get screwed the longer that it goes on, all while Barbie is looking to be a juggernaut at the box office and doing very healthy numbers with critics. And the best of the ink has been going to Gosling. And he has built up a bit of an overdue narrative, especially as a lot of people feel he's been unfairly overlooked for his comedic chops.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jul 19, 2023 16:16:24 GMT
the marketing that gosling has been doing for this movie has been perfect lmao What really helps his case is that with the strike having just begun, he's already pretty much done all the promotion needed for his campaign. Other contenders later on in the year could really get screwed the longer that it goes on, all while Barbie is looking to be a juggernaut at the box office and doing very healthy numbers with critics. And the best of the ink has been going to Gosling. And he has built up a bit of an overdue narrative, especially as a lot of people feel he's been unfairly overlooked for his comedic chops. Not since the embargo lifted. It's been fairly even between Robbie and Gosling, slightly leaning Robbie.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 19, 2023 16:38:14 GMT
What really helps his case is that with the strike having just begun, he's already pretty much done all the promotion needed for his campaign. Other contenders later on in the year could really get screwed the longer that it goes on, all while Barbie is looking to be a juggernaut at the box office and doing very healthy numbers with critics. And the best of the ink has been going to Gosling. And he has built up a bit of an overdue narrative, especially as a lot of people feel he's been unfairly overlooked for his comedic chops. Not since the embargo lifted. It's been fairly even between Robbie and Gosling, slightly leaning Robbie. I haven't looked at most responses since the embargo lift so fair enough, but even so, Gosling's reviews are pretty stellar and it's really only the on-paper goofiness of a person winning an Oscar for playing a Ken doll that could work against him.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 19, 2023 16:39:39 GMT
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,709
Likes: 2,129
|
Post by cherry68 on Jul 20, 2023 18:06:04 GMT
Not many people attending this afternoon, in the original language version nor the Italian one. More crowded for the evening view.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jul 21, 2023 4:38:49 GMT
Give the man his Oscar already. He's great. I can't remember seeing anyone have this much fun on their press tour.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jul 25, 2023 0:55:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 15:03:26 GMT
Been thinking about this and really think they will likely place this in Original Screenplay. I just can’t imagine the nomination saying Based on the toy by Mattel. Pretty sure the rule say it needs to be based on something written. There are existing Barbie movies but they are not credited as sources. Not sure it matters but I would think the studio would want to push for this as well. I think they would prefer to compare with Past Lives and The Holdovers instead of Killers and Oppenheimer.
Also from what I heard The Lego Movie was given the go ahead for original.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 15:06:13 GMT
Been thinking about this and really think they will likely place this in Original Screenplay. I just can’t imagine the nomination saying Based on the toy by Mattel. Pretty sure the rule say it needs to be based on something written. There are existing Barbie movies but they are not credited as sources. Not sure it matters but I would think the studio would want to push for this as well. I think they would prefer to compare with Past Lives and The Holdovers instead of Killers and Oppenheimer. Also from what I heard The Lego Movie was given the go ahead for original. I definitely think its odds of winning go up markedly if it runs in Original, and there is precedent with The LEGO Movie. But then I think of something like Glass Onion, which is an original story but has a pre-existing character that makes it Adapted, and I would argue that Glass Onion has less of a basis on its pre-existing material than Barbie does.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 15:22:40 GMT
Been thinking about this and really think they will likely place this in Original Screenplay. I just can’t imagine the nomination saying Based on the toy by Mattel. Pretty sure the rule say it needs to be based on something written. There are existing Barbie movies but they are not credited as sources. Not sure it matters but I would think the studio would want to push for this as well. I think they would prefer to compare with Past Lives and The Holdovers instead of Killers and Oppenheimer. Also from what I heard The Lego Movie was given the go ahead for original. I definitely think its odds of winning go up markedly if it runs in Original, and there is precedent with The LEGO Movie. But then I think of something like Glass Onion, which is an original story but has a pre-existing character that makes it Adapted, and I would argue that Glass Onion has less of a basis on its pre-existing material than Barbie does. I think Glass Onion is a bit different because that was based on a pre existing character created for a film. I think it can go either way but I’m feeling Original.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 16, 2023 15:24:01 GMT
Been thinking about this and really think they will likely place this in Original Screenplay. I just can’t imagine the nomination saying Based on the toy by Mattel. Pretty sure the rule say it needs to be based on something written. There are existing Barbie movies but they are not credited as sources. Not sure it matters but I would think the studio would want to push for this as well. I think they would prefer to compare with Past Lives and The Holdovers instead of Killers and Oppenheimer. Also from what I heard The Lego Movie was given the go ahead for original. If Barbie ends up going Original and gets nominated, I imagine the Academy will re-tool the rules that any film directly based on preexisting IP are classified as Adapted.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 15:34:03 GMT
I definitely think its odds of winning go up markedly if it runs in Original, and there is precedent with The LEGO Movie. But then I think of something like Glass Onion, which is an original story but has a pre-existing character that makes it Adapted, and I would argue that Glass Onion has less of a basis on its pre-existing material than Barbie does. I think Glass Onion is a bit different because that was based on a pre existing character created for a film. I think it can go either way but I’m feeling Original. But how is that any different than LEGO Batman and LEGO Joker, or the numerous other existing characters that show up in The LEGO Movie? Just because they're LEGO versions of those characters instead of the "canon" character? Or hell, what about something like Birdman, which freely adapts a Raymond Carver story as the framework of the play they're performing while the rest of the story around it is original? Or Patton, which won Original Screenplay despite transcribing the real man's speeches verbatim for huge swaths of the piece (and which could be seen to be just as "adapted" as something like There Will Be Blood, which acknowledged the source material while diverting from it for 85-90% of the film). Where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 16:33:49 GMT
I think Glass Onion is a bit different because that was based on a pre existing character created for a film. I think it can go either way but I’m feeling Original. But how is that any different than LEGO Batman and LEGO Joker, or the numerous other existing characters that show up in The LEGO Movie? Just because they're LEGO versions of those characters instead of the "canon" character? Or hell, what about something like Birdman, which freely adapts a Raymond Carver story as the framework of the play they're performing while the rest of the story around it is original? Or Patton, which won Original Screenplay despite transcribing the real man's speeches verbatim for huge swaths of the piece (and which could be seen to be just as "adapted" as something like There Will Be Blood, which acknowledged the source material while diverting from it for 85-90% of the film). Where do you draw the line? That’s why I used the Lego Movie as an example. They aren’t that different and that’s why I think Barbie is going to placed in original. Hell I would say that Barbie makes more sense in Original than Lego movie did since Batman is based on a comic book which fits under their “previously published” guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 17:38:36 GMT
But how is that any different than LEGO Batman and LEGO Joker, or the numerous other existing characters that show up in The LEGO Movie? Just because they're LEGO versions of those characters instead of the "canon" character? Or hell, what about something like Birdman, which freely adapts a Raymond Carver story as the framework of the play they're performing while the rest of the story around it is original? Or Patton, which won Original Screenplay despite transcribing the real man's speeches verbatim for huge swaths of the piece (and which could be seen to be just as "adapted" as something like There Will Be Blood, which acknowledged the source material while diverting from it for 85-90% of the film). Where do you draw the line? That’s why I used the Lego Movie as an example. They aren’t that different and that’s why I think Barbie is going to placed in original. Hell I would say that Barbie makes more sense in Original than Lego movie did since Batman is based on a comic book which fits under their “previously published” guidelines. I guess the delineation is, what constitutes a "published" character? Because Barbie has existing published texts and storylines involving her and Ken in various other media prior to Gerwig's film.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 18:33:05 GMT
That’s why I used the Lego Movie as an example. They aren’t that different and that’s why I think Barbie is going to placed in original. Hell I would say that Barbie makes more sense in Original than Lego movie did since Batman is based on a comic book which fits under their “previously published” guidelines. I guess the delineation is, what constitutes a "published" character? Because Barbie has existing published texts and storylines involving her and Ken in various other media prior to Gerwig's film. I’ve mentioned those. It could go either way but they are not credited as sources. Everybody who makes a movie about something does not owe credit to everybody else who has made a movie about that same thing. For example if someone makes Hamlet they are adapting Shakespeare, not Olivier. Therefore based on the previously published work of Shakespeare. In this case based off a toy. I don’t know what they will decide but this would be my interpretation of the rules and using The Lego move (the closest example we have) as precedent. Pirates if the Caribbean would be a good precedent too but I’m unsure how that was categorized.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 16, 2023 18:41:44 GMT
I think Glass Onion is a bit different because that was based on a pre existing character created for a film. I think it can go either way but I’m feeling Original. But how is that any different than LEGO Batman and LEGO Joker, or the numerous other existing characters that show up in The LEGO Movie? Just because they're LEGO versions of those characters instead of the "canon" character? Or hell, what about something like Birdman, which freely adapts a Raymond Carver story as the framework of the play they're performing while the rest of the story around it is original? Or Patton, which won Original Screenplay despite transcribing the real man's speeches verbatim for huge swaths of the piece (and which could be seen to be just as "adapted" as something like There Will Be Blood, which acknowledged the source material while diverting from it for 85-90% of the film). Where do you draw the line? The academy clearly does whatever they want as Patton is also based on two books. Gangs of New York is also based on a book (called The Gangs of New York) yet was also nominated in Original Screenplay. So guess sometimes they do whatever they feel like, so that could be the case for Barbie (it shouldn't be though, as it should be definitely placed in adapted).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 18:48:05 GMT
I guess the delineation is, what constitutes a "published" character? Because Barbie has existing published texts and storylines involving her and Ken in various other media prior to Gerwig's film. I’ve mentioned those. It could go either way but they are not credited as sources. Everybody who makes a movie about something does not owe credit to everybody else who has made a movie about that same thing. For example if someone makes Hamlet they are adapting Shakespeare, not Olivier. Therefore based on the previously published work of Shakespeare. In this case based off a toy. I don’t know what they will decide but this would be my interpretation of the rules and using The Lego move (the closest example we have) as precedent. Pirates if the Caribbean would be a good precedent too but I’m unsure how that was categorized. What is the difference between published and copyrighted, though, when it comes down to it? I feel like The LEGO Movie may have set a dangerous precedent, though I also think that it can easily be overlooked as it didn't get nominated in the first place, but they really need to ensure the ground rules for an adaptation, especially as there's never been much in the way of consistency on it historically speaking. Barbie specifically relies upon tropes and expectations set by the existing property to work in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 19:00:09 GMT
But how is that any different than LEGO Batman and LEGO Joker, or the numerous other existing characters that show up in The LEGO Movie? Just because they're LEGO versions of those characters instead of the "canon" character? Or hell, what about something like Birdman, which freely adapts a Raymond Carver story as the framework of the play they're performing while the rest of the story around it is original? Or Patton, which won Original Screenplay despite transcribing the real man's speeches verbatim for huge swaths of the piece (and which could be seen to be just as "adapted" as something like There Will Be Blood, which acknowledged the source material while diverting from it for 85-90% of the film). Where do you draw the line? The academy clearly does whatever they want as Patton is also based on two books. Gangs of New York is also based on a book (called The Gangs of New York) yet was also nominated in Original Screenplay. So guess sometimes they do whatever they feel like, so that could be the case for Barbie (it shouldn't be though, as it should be definitely placed in adapted). When it comes to Gangs of New York, I feel like it's a weird situation because even though it obviously is an influence, the story is original and the characters depicted are either completely invented by the screenwriters or were historical personages. The Gangs of New York doesn't really have a narrative, either; it's a historical text. It's not like Goodfellas where the events depicted in Wiseguy are translated page-to-screen as they happened. If it didn't have the same title as Herbert Asbury's novel, it wouldn't be an issue, and I suppose you could argue that the borrowing of a pre-existing title was done already when McDonagh took The Banshees of Inisherin from an aborted play. But of course, your mileage may vary, which is why it would be nice if the Academy made stricter bylaws on it.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 19:07:25 GMT
I’ve mentioned those. It could go either way but they are not credited as sources. Everybody who makes a movie about something does not owe credit to everybody else who has made a movie about that same thing. For example if someone makes Hamlet they are adapting Shakespeare, not Olivier. Therefore based on the previously published work of Shakespeare. In this case based off a toy. I don’t know what they will decide but this would be my interpretation of the rules and using The Lego move (the closest example we have) as precedent. Pirates if the Caribbean would be a good precedent too but I’m unsure how that was categorized. What is the difference between published and copyrighted, though, when it comes down to it? I feel like The LEGO Movie may have set a dangerous precedent, though I also think that it can easily be overlooked as it didn't get nominated in the first place, but they really need to ensure the ground rules for an adaptation, especially as there's never been much in the way of consistency on it historically speaking. Barbie specifically relies upon tropes and expectations set by the existing property to work in the first place. I’m not saying what it should it shouldn’t be just saying the category is “Based in works previously published”. Take it up with the Academy if you disagree. Im just making a prediction here based on the current rules. Nominated or not someone made a decision on the Lego Movie.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 19:15:23 GMT
What is the difference between published and copyrighted, though, when it comes down to it? I feel like The LEGO Movie may have set a dangerous precedent, though I also think that it can easily be overlooked as it didn't get nominated in the first place, but they really need to ensure the ground rules for an adaptation, especially as there's never been much in the way of consistency on it historically speaking. Barbie specifically relies upon tropes and expectations set by the existing property to work in the first place. I’m not saying what it should it shouldn’t be just saying the category is “Based in works previously published”. Take it up with the Academy if you disagree. Im just making a prediction here based on the current rules. Nominated or not someone made a decision on the Lego Movie. I am not debating your prediction. I think you're right in that it might easily go the route of Original Screenplay and there's justifiable precedent. I am just having a discussion about what the parameters are for an adaptation, and pointing out that the Academy has no consistency one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 16, 2023 19:15:48 GMT
The academy clearly does whatever they want as Patton is also based on two books. Gangs of New York is also based on a book (called The Gangs of New York) yet was also nominated in Original Screenplay. So guess sometimes they do whatever they feel like, so that could be the case for Barbie (it shouldn't be though, as it should be definitely placed in adapted). When it comes to Gangs of New York, I feel like it's a weird situation because even though it obviously is an influence, the story is original and the characters depicted are either completely invented by the screenwriters or were historical personages. The Gangs of New York doesn't really have a narrative, either; it's a historical text. It's not like Goodfellas where the events depicted in Wiseguy are translated page-to-screen as they happened. If it didn't have the same title as Herbert Asbury's novel, it wouldn't be an issue, and I suppose you could argue that the borrowing of a pre-existing title was done already when McDonagh took The Banshees of Inisherin from an aborted play. But of course, your mileage may vary, which is why it would be nice if the Academy made stricter bylaws on it. It is indeed a historical text (which I've read), but a lot of what's in the movie is from the book in one way or another. I mean Bill's last name is different, but he's definitely based on Bill Poole, including his death, which isn't exactly the same as in the book, but clearly they reworked what was in the book. I mean a lot of adaptations are VERY adapted like Oil!/There Will Be Blood, so it's odd that they decided to play fast and loose with that one. But agreed that the academy should be clearer on these things.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 19:21:24 GMT
When it comes to Gangs of New York, I feel like it's a weird situation because even though it obviously is an influence, the story is original and the characters depicted are either completely invented by the screenwriters or were historical personages. The Gangs of New York doesn't really have a narrative, either; it's a historical text. It's not like Goodfellas where the events depicted in Wiseguy are translated page-to-screen as they happened. If it didn't have the same title as Herbert Asbury's novel, it wouldn't be an issue, and I suppose you could argue that the borrowing of a pre-existing title was done already when McDonagh took The Banshees of Inisherin from an aborted play. But of course, your mileage may vary, which is why it would be nice if the Academy made stricter bylaws on it. It is indeed a historical text (which I've read), but a lot of what's in the movie is from the book in one way or another. I mean Bill's last name is different, but he's definitely based on Bill Poole, including his death, which isn't exactly the same as in the book, but clearly they reworked what was in the book. I mean a lot of adaptations are VERY adapted like Oil!/There Will Be Blood, so it's odd that they decided to play fast and loose with that one. But agreed that the academy should be clearer on these things. I feel it can easily be argued as a chicken-and-egg scenario when it comes to Gangs of New York. The events happened, Asbury wrote about them in a non-fiction manner, Scorsese used the book as a springboard for a more-or-less original narrative but the real events depicted in Asbury's book are changed pretty substantially to reflect the original story. But to what extent did Jay Cocks and Co. use Asbury's novel as anything more than a guiding influence to get the history correct, and how is that any different than any original script based on historical events?
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 16, 2023 19:31:39 GMT
I’m not saying what it should it shouldn’t be just saying the category is “Based in works previously published”. Take it up with the Academy if you disagree. Im just making a prediction here based on the current rules. Nominated or not someone made a decision on the Lego Movie. I am not debating your prediction. I think you're right in that it might easily go the route of Original Screenplay and there's justifiable precedent. I am just having a discussion about what the parameters are for an adaptation, and pointing out that the Academy has no consistency one way or the other. That is very true and always has been. I wish there was more of a way to do it on spirit, you know? To me something like Barbie, Glass Onion, TWBN and Gangs FEEL like original screenplays and for all intents and purposes are. While something like Blue Jasmine was such an obvious rip off it felt like an adaptation. These things are hard to make rules for though.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 16, 2023 19:36:37 GMT
It is indeed a historical text (which I've read), but a lot of what's in the movie is from the book in one way or another. I mean Bill's last name is different, but he's definitely based on Bill Poole, including his death, which isn't exactly the same as in the book, but clearly they reworked what was in the book. I mean a lot of adaptations are VERY adapted like Oil!/There Will Be Blood, so it's odd that they decided to play fast and loose with that one. But agreed that the academy should be clearer on these things. I feel it can easily be argued as a chicken-and-egg scenario when it comes to Gangs of New York. The events happened, Asbury wrote about them in a non-fiction manner, Scorsese used the book as a springboard for a more-or-less original narrative but the real events depicted in Asbury's book are changed pretty substantially to reflect the original story. But to what extent did Jay Cocks and Co. use Asbury's novel as anything more than a guiding influence to get the history correct, and how is that any different than any original script based on historical events? Well I'll say in general there can be a sloppiness, or perhaps a purposeful shiftiness when it comes to whatever the writer of an "original screenplay" tells a true story. For example, Milk won original, despite the film directly thanking the documentary on Harvey Milk which if you've seen the doc, it would be hard to believe he didn't use a massive amount of material from that doc, again to the point the film thanked the doc, but wasn't adapted from it. Which seems a bit hard to believe. And I do ponder how much this very debate (and the strength of a given category) encourages a writer to say whether they "adapted" their work or not.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 16, 2023 19:43:15 GMT
I am not debating your prediction. I think you're right in that it might easily go the route of Original Screenplay and there's justifiable precedent. I am just having a discussion about what the parameters are for an adaptation, and pointing out that the Academy has no consistency one way or the other. That is very true and always has been. I wish there was more of a way to do it on spirit, you know? To me something like Barbie, Glass Onion, TWBN and Gangs FEEL like original screenplays and for all intents and purposes are. While something like Blue Jasmine was such an obvious rip off it felt like an adaptation. These things are hard to make rules for though. Yeah, how anyone can look at Blue Jasmine and not consider it an adaptation is ridiculous to me.
|
|